Like everyone else, I’m deeply saddened (how trite that sounds, but it’s what I feel) by the horrific massacre of 6 and 7 year old children, as well, of course, as the adults who sought to protect them. This was a horrible horrible tragedy. (Why do I feel like I have to spew platitudes? They don’t feel like platitudes, but even as I type them, they sound like empty crap that I need to say to get to my point. This is one thing about blogging that is sometimes difficult for me. I genuinely feel terrible, so sad and overwhelmed, by the Connecticut shooting, but it’s not something I generally feel comfortable talking about . . . if you know what I mean. Anyway. . . . )
So of course the lunatic left is calling for yet another ban on guns, yet another law that they hope will make crazy people not crazy. Uh huh. How about we let any teacher or school admin/staff—or anyone else–who is licensed to carry a gun actually carry one? That’s the sort of gun law that would actually help in these situations. As with the shooting at the Batman movie in Colorado, these adults were sitting ducks, without any means of defending either themselves or the tiny children in their care. That is the travesty here. No lone gunman should be able to stand there and shoot unarmed people–stopping to reload, for goodness’ sake!–with zero fear that they will, themselves, be shot dead on the spot.
You want to talk deterrent? Armed citizens . . . that’s a deterrent.
Sure these cowardly shooters tend to be suicidal; that’s why they kill themselves before they can be apprehended when law enforcement finally shows up . . . usually just to carry the bodies away and then document the crime scene. I’m not knocking law enforcement here, by the way. What else are they supposed to do? They just can’t be everywhere all the time. But you know who is everywhere all the time? Average American citizens who have and know how to use guns. These are the people who can–and have–stopped these sorts of massacres in which one man guns down unarmed people. How many of these suicidal lunatics would be so eager to go on a shooting spree if they knew that their intended victims would shoot back? How many shooting rampages happen in police stations?
Oh, sure, these shooter types are nuts. Of course they are, they’d have to do something like that. But they are “sane” enough to plan ahead, to shoot themselves after they’ve achieved whatever their goal, to write about their plans on Facebook (or wherever), to destroy the hard drives on their computers . . . . If they are sane enough to manage that, then they’d definitely think twice before embarking on a shooting rampage in which the targets actually shoot back.
And so, again, we come to the screams for gun control and bans. You know who turns in their guns when governments demand them? That’s right, law-abiding citizens who (shocker!) obey the law. You know who does not give one fig about the law? The lawless. Criminals. And those are the people who would violate a gun law just as they violate laws against . . . oh, you know, shooting people. So a gun ban leads to criminals being the only ones with guns. And law enforcement, who let’s face it, arrive after the fact.
Obviously, I’m not advocating that everyone be trained in the use of fire arms and licensed to carry, but everyone who wants to be certainly should be allowed to (hard to believe I have to even say that). When was the last time there was a shooting rampage at a gun show? Oh, never? Uh huh. The people there, as at a police station, would be armed–and able–to put an immediate stop to it. Criminals, including the criminally insane, are smart enough to go where they won’t be shot. At Fort Hood, for instance, the terrorist just stood there shooting military personnel because they were (this still blows my mind) not permitted to carry guns on base. You know who stopped him? Of course, an armed person.
In every case where the shooter didn’t manage to kill himself or to commit “suicide by cop,” he was stopped by a person with a gun. And yes, this happens all the time, but we don’t hear about it because the media doesn’t like to “glorify” guns. But guns save lives (even if they cost a hero his job . . . . Actually, I had this case in mind, but it apparently happens quite often. Fired from your job for protecting yourself and your employer’s store. Nice.).
So another angle that is coming up is that this guy, like many of his cowardly shooting-at-defenseless-people ilk, was a loner. And strange. And anti-social. Uh huh. So are some of my dearest friends. Being a loner or strange or anti-social does not make a person a would-be murderer. Most of the people I know who are loners, strange, and anti-social are actually leftists, and in a way, this makes sense. Leftists don’t actually like people, they just like to pretend they do . . . you know, in the abstract. But that doesn’t mean they’re all about to “go postal.” They have their own ways of dealing with their issues, and usually, they don’t actually harm others. At least not directly.
But I digress. Apart from the calls for new gun restrictions and bans, there is a lot of talk about how video games make people “desensitized” and potential killers. Oh for frak’s sake, this is just nuts. Like when heavy metal music made people shoot people. Uh huh. What is wrong with these leftists who keep sticking their fingers in holes bursting in the dam rather than simply shoring up the dam itself? They play whack-a-mole with their bans on this, their regulations of that, their laws against the other thing. For every symptom, there’s a leftist fascist solution! The shooter used a gun, ban them! The shooter was insane, ban insanity! The shooter played violent video games, ban violent games! The shooter wore “X brand” jeans, ban them!
On the video game thingy: I’m a gamer, so I was pretty interested in Michelle Malkin’s posting of a letter from a gamer she received regarding PvP (that’s person versus person, for you non-gamer types). The writer makes a good point about how gamers often find their game community a social outlet. This is definitely true in such games as (the now, sadly, former) City of Heroes and (so I’ve heard, at least, in) Guild Wars. Anyway, the point of the guy’s letter was that all video games are not the problem, and I have to agree (obviously things like FarmVille aren’t inspiring shooting rampages).
But his point about PvP, while valid, is also flawed. I, personally, don’t PvP because I don’t like shooting my friends or unsuspecting strangers; it’s just not fun to me. But it is fun to a lot of people, and it certainly doesn’t mean that they will go out shooting people in “real life.” Sane people know that games are games, not life, not real. Do they desensitize people? Maybe. I’m no shrink, but I do know that no normal, balanced (i.e. sane) person is going to PvP in any game and then go shoot up an elementary school. Or movie theater. Or high school. Or post office. Or military installation. It’s a game, not a means of mass hypnosis (or we’d all be shooting up schools).
And even if PvP or simply violent video games did inspire such actions (I sincerely doubt they do any more than listening to the Beatles made people have wanton sex or do drugs), the player would definitely think twice about entering a combat arena in which the other “players” were likely to be as well or better armed. They may not mind their video game character being killed without doing much serious damage (and they know that in order to reach some invincible build in the PvP game of their choice, that character had to die multiple times–not something people can do–so the player can tweak his stats), but they darn sure won’t risk their own skins to get off a shot or two before being pwned. So again, I say, let everyone who wants to and has a license carry any and everywhere.
But . . . waaah! . . . shrieks the illogical leftist, we’d end up in the wild wild West with everyone shooting everyone on sight. Um, no. In states with carry laws (concealed or not), there is actually less gun violence . . . at least in places that citizens can carry. Responsible, law-abiding citizens do not go around shooting people, and they know better than to wave their guns around for fun. If this were a real concern, then we’d hear about it. Endlessly. (If the commie media could find any story about a reasonable person suddenly going wild West we’d hear about it for days. Weeks.). But we don’t. Crazy people who want to kill the most possible people without risk to their plan being interrupted never ever shoot on potentially-armed people.
These blood baths happen where guns are banned.